On 27 Jun 2001, Roland Huss wrote:
>
> BTW:
>
> > As Craig mentioned, the 1.0 release branch will probably become 1.1 (or
> > 1.01) before long, but that should be a maintenance release. So,
> > critical patches can be applied to both the HEAD and the 1.0 branches
> > when appropriate, but all new development should take place solely in
> > the HEAD branch.
>
> I wonder, why you recommend to apply bug fixes to BOTH struts
> branches ? Why don't simply put them into the patch branch and merge it
> back later on into the main trunk with CVS ? For us, CVS merging works
> perfectly, the resulting conflicts were always resolved in less than
> four hours.
>
This is mostly my personal preference. It's primarily based on the
following beliefs:
* I've been burned more than once on CVS merges, so I'm
a little gunshy ... :-)
* The internals of the HEAD branch are likely to diverge
pretty rapidly from 1.0 as we add new features, so there
will be more and more times when the patch would have to
be different anyway.
* I want us to be picky about the patches we apply to the
1.0 patch, to avoid the prospect of disrupting stability
in a 1.0.x patch release.
* I don't believe that there will be so many patches that
the "double commit" workload is particularly onerous :-).
Craig
